Myocarditis Cases Reported After mRNA-Based Covid-19 Vaccination

I think it is therefore more likely that adaptive immune system is involved because it has ability to remember.

Now is it possible that spike protein itself or lipid shell is causing this based on incidence rate differences between 3 vaccines?

Hard to say.

The amount of spike protein produced is in correlation with amount of mRNA entering cells. The amount of mRNA entering cells is 3x higher with Moderna vaccine than with Pfizer vaccine and it appears that it is similar on both shots (first and second). But the amount of mRNA (converted from adenovirus DNA) entering cells with the second AZ shot is probably lower than on the first shot because there is also some immunity against the adenovirus and the dose size is the same.

This is in correlation with the amount of antibodies produced by these vaccines.

This is the not contradicting with the observation so far.

But it could be also lipid cell that has been found to cause inflammation. Considering the high amount of antibodies generated on the second vaccination, it is plausible that the lipid shells are not attacked by the immune system directly. But it might be possible that the cells are attacked after lipid shells have merged with their membranes.

There are few ways to find how what is most likely happening.

First is to hope that protein based vaccine from Novavax will be used by meaningful amount to detect proper incidence rates. When it is spike protein itself then we should see also high incidence rate on second vaccination.

The second option is to analyze mixed vaccinations where first vaccination was done with adenovirus vaccine and the second one with mRNA vaccine. It is not perfect setup but it might provide some additional information.

Third option is to use a mouse model similar to one in previous study where mouse were intravenously injected with mRNA vaccines. Repeat the study with mRNA vaccine, placebo (saline solution), dummy lipid shells and protein vaccines (might be necessary to do the study without and with the adjuvant).

because it feels like you're being a valuable skeptic, even though you aren't?

because you think "just asking questions," the way scare political news commentators, delivers something positive?

because you think the work of scientists should be judged based on the debunking of a source that has nothing to do with the science you're openly questioning?

because you've become so comfortable explaining your behavior to people who are openly telling you to your face that it's not appropriate that you don't even hear them saying "this isn't appropriate" anymore?

.

> prior reports have emphasized an important distinction

I took a look at your new link, and I don't see any important distinction being emphasized.

THIS IS NOT AN INVITATION FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN.

This is me saying "nothing is being emphasized to the point that someone who, unlike you, has domain specific training can even notice it."

In reality, you've hyper-focused on some irrelevant detail, and now you're desperately trying to figure out why that irrelevant detail isn't present other places.

"Well yes, don't you see? Sure, this paper is about fuel efficiency, but this one doesn't cover kerosene cars, and the other one emphasized an important distinction about kerosene cars"

In reality it's likely to be some detail the paper put in to silence a different walrus.

Yes, I see that you quoted a random statistical detail about age groups and likelihoods.

You want to know why this doesn't matter?

Every vaccine you've ever taken has this risk. All of them.

We just don't talk about it for the same reason that we don't talk about a seatbelt's risk of causing a broken rib, which can puncture your lung, and kill you. Happens twice a year in this country.

Why?

Because twice a year is nothing, and we don't want to spend the rest of our lives talking to people who really want to deeply study that twice a year number, as if there's something valuable there.

The real issue is you have no statistical intuition, so you don't recognize that you're wasting everyone's time chasing ghosts.

The downside, of course, is that STUPID PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU.

And they think you're challenging whether the vaccine is a good idea.

And no, it really doesn't matter if you say you aren't doing that. Stupid people see scary numbers and they remember what Fox News said, and they end up not taking the vaccine, because with five billion people worldwide having a dose in their arm, their dumb ass is so scared by people like you that they're still going to wait and see.

And you, desperate to feel intelligent, will not stop trying to ply these bullshit nonsense numbers, to show everyone else how much you get it.

Please stop doing this soon.

You're killing stupid people.

Maybe you should take their advice after all, and exercise some tranquility.